Hacker News Reader

About the only game in Steams Early Access program I would recommend to buy is Factorio[0]. It is essentially a factory building/automation game that's constantly getting updated, with one big patch about a week ago and several bugfix versions since. They are also open about their development process, i.e. some devs playing the game live with streamers and answering questions from the streamers and the chat to the best of their ability. In one such instant IIRC they even said they're planning for the 1.0 release towards the end of this year.

All in all, this game is definitely worth your time and money if you're into this game genre. There's even a demo version if you're not sure.

[0]: http://store.steampowered.com/app/427520/Factorio/

NO. Do not buy factorio. You will lose sleep. You will lose your job. You will sell your children just for a few more speed modules.

The first time I played factorio I played for 24 hours straight, and I am not normally someone who finds games any fun at all.

But seriously, Factorio is a great game. A game I imagine myself still playing 10 years from now.

I have purchased/followed a number of Steam Early Access titles and very rarely have I been disappointed. I think the trick is, to wait a bit to see how often the devs update. There are some outliers such as RimWorld or Subnautica where updates happen only a couple times per year, but each update is game-changing and adds tons new content, features and bug-fixes.

Other titles which are still in EA but are releasing constant stream of information plus software updates:

  - Space Engineers/Medieval Engineers (weekly YT blog)
  - Rust (weekly blog)
  - Rogalia (daily to weekly Steam blog)
  - Project Zomboid (weekly blog)
  - Kenshi (between weekly and monthly changelist)
  - Factorio (weekly blog)
  - Don't Starve Together (multiplayer addition to Don't Starve)
  - DayZ (I only play maybe once per year but the blog updates seem quite frequent)

Titles which had a long EA period but ended up releasing IMHO amazingly polished products:

  - Terraria 
  - Kerbal Space Program
  - Prison Architect

Subnautica is a fairly unique project in a number of ways. One of my favorites is their public task boards and bug tracker: http://subnautica.unknownworlds.com/

Factorio has been an absolutely amazing EA. Rich and enjoyable for like the past year or more, and evolving fairly rapidly which makes it more interesting in many cases.

Also their blog is excellent: https://www.factorio.com/blog/

I think early access is a different situation from preordering, since the former gives you something right away, and that something is one which you can influence as a tester.

I've generally been pretty gung-ho with early access games if they have a Linux/SteamOS version available. Kerbal Space Program and Planet Explorers have taken weeks' worth of my time (and that time was enjoyable, even amid the bugs; in fact, the bugs were part of the reason why I enjoyed them). With both of those games, I had a chance to experience their evolution from alpha-quality-at-best to finished product. That's not an experience normally possible in the release cycle of a non-early-access game.

I'd add Software Inc. It's essentially a software building simulator, but it's very polished compared to your regular early access stuff.

Not quite Factorio level (yet) though.

Just adding that factorio is great and you should play it now!

They've fairly recently published a schedule for the alpha 3.0 release (first public access to the procedural planet tech, among other things), along with a video about estimating timelines for the project. The folks who develop software for a living might not find it as interesting as I did, but it's a decent look at where the project is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOjXfNnhxf0

I've gotten some fun out of the alpha game itself, but also quite a lot of value out of these videos and other info they put out. It's a fascinating look into game development, which is something I'm interested in but not looking to pursue a career for myself.

Thursday is "Around the Verse" day, so they should be releasing one of their status update videos tonight. These are rotating through the four studios and covering what a particular studio has been working on over the last month, followed by a deeper dive into some particular subject.

Last week was the Austin studio update and touched on growing the studio's build systems. Previously they've covered subjects like QA testing, ship designs, procedural planets, procedural space stations, and a lot more. It's usually really interesting to watch.

I think this week is the UK studio. They're the ones working on a lot of the bigger ships, so I've got my fingers crossed for a look at the Aegis Reclaimer. But they were late in getting the video up last month, so we might be waiting until tomorrow. It's already 11 PM over there.

I am not sure if that video is meant to be impressive. The first guy talking about how hard it is having to work with designers, developers, audio etc, um ok. Like every single game out there.

I just see so much cruft, so many useless people such as producers, talking a lot but not doing a lot. Taking all the credit, but not actually working apart from meetings.

I don't think it's meant to be impressive, it's meant to give people a window into how large game development projects work. Maybe it's like every single game out there, but the point is I don't work at any game studios and none of the other ones publish their production schedules or host weekly studio updates.

Ok, but it is like every single project ever.

The PO comes up with an idea, we break it up and enter it into jira, etc...

I guess it is interesting for people who don't work in IT projects.

Yep, that's me!

Around The Verse has always been a bit of a letdown, with their total focus on gameplay, art, ship/world design, modeling, etc.

I really wish they'd occasionally give even a cursory nod to the programming team.

"BUG-SMASHERS!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMcLjNW8-SA&list=PLVct2QDhDr...

Watching Mark Abent demo bugs in his "handy dandy test level", all the "shenanigans" that result, and then show us the code and what the actual issues were, has been pretty much worth what I pledged right there :)

Oh, very cool. Not sure how I missed this. Thanks.

Also check out the Happy Hour GameDev episodes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSDsKT3xDQg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3g8aBnBiwE

Bugsmashers is a fun series though! They get into the lines of code to fix bugs submitted by the community.

I linked the video about building the 3.0 production schedule, and then omitted the 3.0 schedule itself. Behold, the actual schedule! https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

I HAVE played Star Citizen, and already had experiences on it that aren't actually possible in any other game. Will it meet all their promises? Certainly not. Is it going to "ever come out" insofar as a "release version"? Who knows, it's on 2.6.3 already, technically.

But the thing is, Star Citizen promised a level of capability of a game that has never existed up to this point. And I have backed it personally for... well, a lot. But even if it never comes out, I won't really feel cheated, because I know exactly what the goal is, and the challenges meeting it includes. It's not a scam if it fails, if it fails it was poor management and an impossible goal.

But I'd argue, seeing that even some Early Access games on Steam seem to have gained some Star Citizen-style features, that Star Citizen has raised the bar for what a space simulation game going forward should be able to do. And for that alone, it's worth it.

Well said, but I think you're missing the point. People aren't upset because they paid for something and got a nice experience (or not) out of it. They are upset because they paid for something and they still have not received it.

To use your Casino example, this is like going to that casino and paying for a shrimp appetizer, never receiving it but saying "well at least I got a nice experience and story out of it". People are pissed because they paid for something and still haven't gotten it (at least that's the story I keep hearing).

Having said that; if you believe that a game is about paying for an experience (not a disc or digital license), then you (and a lot of other people) have gotten their money's worth.

That's definitely fair, but I think if what you really want is a disc or a download, then you shouldn't back games that don't exist yet. Like I said, I won't invest in a game (or anything) that might not materialize unless I think there's some possibility for a payout--either the thing I want, or a nice experience.

So for those people who are mad, it's really more like going to the casino and expecting to get a huge windfall playing blackjack. Like yeah it might happen but don't think of it as an investment opportunity.

This is interesting, as I've had the exact opposite experience. I've bought more than a few EA games, and in every case I got something out of the deal, usually followed by finished product. (Although the quality of that finished product can be questionable)

Kickstarter on the other hand seems to deliver an EA game, which then has the same risks as a normal EA title. Often times you've just thrown away some cash without even a demo to show for it.

I'll echo that I'm in the same boat. I feel the development team has provided a very enjoyable experience outside of the game platform, as well as within. I have hopes for their 3.0 release, but if I never play again I still feel my money was spent on something that was far more artful than EA cramming another shitty franchise down my throat.

Your expectations are probably in line with reality, but Star Citizen does not sell itself as a casino. They entice you to spend money and promise you something great with little mention of risk. I really hope they create a great game, but like a start up that took on too much funding, I have grave concerns.

Is there development timeline really that absurd though? I'm sure there are plenty of AAA titles that have taken this long to get out the door, they just leave the announcement till sometime just before it's ready. I know that development times have drastically decreased in the past 10 years but still... I'd be skeptical if studio told me they were taking any LESS time with something this big.

Editing to add that we're not even mentioning the fact that they are basically building a global development company with studios sprinkled all over the US and EU to keep up with the new funding expectations, those things don't happen overnight.

> Is there development timeline really that absurd though?

It's not clear to me what their development timeline is, although constant Alpha releases are promising.

> Editing to add that we're not even mentioning the fact that they are basically building a global development company...

I think this is where a lot of the risk exists. Normally a development studio grows by successfully releasing games (in terms of money). Star Citizen is in uncharted waters in that regard.

That second point is true, though it's worth pointing out that the company has a tonne of experience in game development and a few other fields such as film production so I feel like it's a little different from a nobody startup trying to manage it all for the first time.

>Your expectations are probably in line with reality

I think this is the key. A lot of people are sucked into the idea that kickstarters are a sure thing, but you can't spend money that way. Kickstarter isn't a place to buy stuff, it's a place to throw money away and maybe get something cool out of it.

You speculated. Hmm. This makes me wonder if there are books on Kickstarter. Who's running the odds, and what are they?

You can in fact buy books in development. Ex. https://www.manning.com/meap-catalog

I think parent post mentioned "book" as in "bookmaker", a set of bets being maintained by a person.

It sounds like the only reason you won't buy a pre-release game on Steam is because it's on Steam and nothing else. Every criticism ever levied against early accessed games is a criticism you just excused: "I paid for some entertainment and received it", "I wouldn't really feel cheated". But then you do a total 180: "I will NEVER buy a pre-release game on Steam". Whoa - never?

Nothing separates you from this community: http://store.steampowered.com/app/252490/Rust/ you would fit right in and you'd have just as much fun. Nothing you said passes scrutiny. You're in it for a ride with the developers, and that's what's fun to you. Not the product. And that's ok.

That's fair. I probably shouldn't have said "I would NEVER..." because that's false. It's more a problem that I don't frequent Steam Greenlight enough to see the kinds of things that I'd be interested in.

The point I was trying to get at was that I wouldn't buy an unfinished game (or anything else) and expect a "final" product. If I ever do buy a steam greenlight game, it'll be for the same reasons I bought Star Citizen.

I also should have mentioned that I bought Banished well before it was finished, but it was after I read a lot of that guys development blog, and was interested in the content of just that part, and wanted to support that. It was a fun ride, and in the end, a (I feel) very polished game came out of it.

I feel very much the same way about No Man's Sky. $80 (Canada) for a great gaming experience, but there was a massive blowback on that. To me, it was pretty much exactly what I was expecting. Many people complained of 'lies, false advertising, vapour' etc... but to me it was great value for money.

People complained about those things because the makers of No Man's Sky repeatedly said untrue or misleading things about what content and features would be in the game -- things that we now know they must have known were false at the time (e.g. the talk of how other games cheat by using skyboxes while No Man's Sky simulates physics).

Here is a Reddit post that covers in great detail the claims made by No Man Sky's maker about the game's content, as compared to reality on launch:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4y1h9i/wheres_the_no...

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/08/17/broken-promises-...

It may be that the game is perfectly fun for people as launched, but that's separate from the concern that the game's maker misrepresented it.

And look what they've materially accomplished. The tech is incredible, even if it isn't productized yet.

This is understandable, but there are people who have spent hundreds, or even thousands of dollars buying various virtual goods in the yet-to-be-released game. I'm not so sure they will feel equally satisfied if (or, at this rate, when) the game goes kaput.

That's likely true, but if the ride wasn't enough for those people, they shouldn't have spent money on it. It's like a person who chooses to spend $20 on lottery tickets and then gets mad that they didn't win. Don't pay unless the risk is part of the fun.

This might be true for this particular game but the lack of checks and balances on kickstarter is troubling.

This attitude makes no sense to me. This is what kickstarter is for: you back high-risk projects, get some goofy schwag, and sometimes the project actually works, and how cool is that?

Why does there seem to be a horde of people who think kickstarter is for pre-ordering finished products and getting pissed when they don't receive them? That's just not what it is!

I'm sure this horde exists because kickstarter creators market themselves as if they're selling pre-orders of finished products.

In some cases they have no choice, because some kickstarters are really expensive. It might make sense to pre-order Ubuntu's $700 smartphone for example, but nobody would ever throw Canonical $700 for some "goofy schwag" and just hope they might or might not get a phone later.

> the lack of checks and balances on kickstarter is troubling

The check and balance you're looking for is traditional capital investment, I think?

Because if all things on Kickstarter clear a bar of "this is a sound business", then those projects probably wouldn't need Kickstarter.

edit: for clarity

That sounds like a generalization. There are probably lots of sound businesses that do not have access to traditional capital investment, and would benefit from being on Kickstarter. Additionally, there are businesses that do not clear a bar of "this is a sound business" that have had heaps of traditional capital investment. We are talking about sets with only some overlap.

> and would benefit from being on Kickstarter.

There are different funding sites with different rules and different popularity due to those rules and the vagaries of advertising and attention. Kickstarter doesn't need to cater to every type of project or business.

The number of checks and balances people keep adding when someone is bad is taking it's toll on some industries. Safe guards are good up to a point... then eventually it gets ridiculous.

Yeah I am surprised they haven't added a rule that you can't give backers something that doesn't exist.

Being able to back something to get that thing seems to confuse to many people into believing it is a shop where you buy things rather than an investing in something you would like to exist, but may never actually exist.